我就知道你不会去看日本跟美国官网原文出处写什么?
不要在那边自我解释,
你的解释不会比日本还有美国官方解释正确.
美国官方相关报告显示旧金山和平条约中台湾与澎湖的地位等同千岛群岛的地位,也等同
琉球的地位,
旧金山和平条约是精确履行波次坦公告条款包括开罗宣言在内.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v14p2/d595
在SFPT第2条,日本放弃对朝鲜,福尔摩沙,千岛群岛,库页岛,南洋群岛,南极区域,西沙群岛
,南沙群岛的权利,资格,和主张,这可推断日本承认对于这些岛屿拥有最终的主权而她同意
置于托管制度.这个概念由杜勒斯和英国的委任代表杨格先生所承认(page 78,93,美国国
务院公报4392)杜勒斯谈及日本当时的立场是"剩余主权".
In Article 2 of the Peace Treaty, Japan renounced right, title and claim to
Korea, Formosa, the Kuriles, Sakhalin, the Mandated Islands, Antarctic area,
the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands. It may be inferred that ultimate
Japanese sovereignty was recognized over the islands she agreed to place in
trusteeship. This conception was conceded by Mr. Dulles (page 78, Dept. State
Publication 4392)8and by Mr. Younger, the U.K. delegate (page 93, Dept. State
Publication 4392). Mr. Dulles speaks of the current Japanese position as “
residual sovereignty”.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23p1/d13
在坡次坦公告第八段显示"开罗宣言条款必须实行且日本主权应被限制在本州岛,北海道岛
,九州岛,四国岛,和我们决定诸如次要的岛屿."开罗宣言具体的只被提交于"这些领土是从
中国偷来的,例如满州,福尔摩沙与澎湖",尽管他只增加"日本也将被驱赶从所有由暴力和
贪婪取得的其他土地."旧金山和平条约产生一个由盟军"决定"的结果,至于提到日本放弃
的"次要的岛屿".在此款内日本放弃(a)确切以韩国为称的岛屿;(b)福尔摩沙和澎湖;(c)千
岛群岛,南库页岛和毗连的岛屿;(d)国际联盟托管系统;(e)南极地区;和(f)南沙和西沙岛
屿.换句话说,条约显露出一个精确履行的波次坦公告条款而不是企图实践开罗宣言中就领
土是由暴力和贪婪所取得而论的不明确之条款.
The Potsdam Proclamation, paragraph (8), reads “The terms of the Cairo
Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to
the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as
we determine.” The Cairo Declaration referred specifically only to “the
territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa and
the Pescadores”, although it did add “Japan will also be expelled from all
other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.” The San
Francisco Peace Treaty amounts to a “determination” by the Allied Powers as
to the “minor islands” which Japan is to renounce. By its terms Japan
renounced (a) certain islands off Korea; (b) Formosa and the Pescadores; (c)
the Kurile Islands, South Sakhalin and adjacent islands; (d) the League of
Nation’s Mandate System; (e) the Antarctic area; and (f) the Spratley and
Paracel Islands. In other words, the Treaty appears to be an implementation
of the precise terms of the Potsdam Proclamation rather than an attempt to
carry out the vague provision of the Cairo Declaration regarding territories
taken by violence and greed.
美国不能一贯的持有日本不再放弃千岛群岛的立场,较于它(日本)可以持有它没有放弃福
尔摩沙与澎湖的立场.它必须,考虑到在国务院和美国参议院持有的立场,坚决主张他们的
处置是交由未来的国际行动.它将完美一致的符合美国支持日本在这些岛屿的争议,或是他
们的部分,应该借由国际行动归还给日本,例如一个在同盟国包括苏联的协议.
The United States cannot consistently take the position that Japan has not
renounced the Kuriles, any more than she could take the position that she had
not renounced Formosa and the Pescadores. She must, in view of the position
taken by the Secretary and by the United States Senate, contend that their
disposition is for future international action. It would be perfectly
consistent for the United States to support Japan in the argument that these
islands, or part of them, should be returned to Japan by international
action, such as an accord among the Allied Powers, including the Soviet Union.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23p1/d89
国务卿提醒重光揆先生千岛群岛和琉球在投降条款的处理是相同的方式且当美国在和平条
约同意日本可能对琉球保留剩余主权,我们也在26条规定假如日本给予苏联更好的条款我
们也可以要求对我们同样的条款.这代表假如日本承认苏联是给予千岛群岛完整的主权,我
们主张对我们同样给予琉球群岛的完整主权.
The Secretary reminded Mr. Shigemitsu that the Kuriles and Ryukyus were
handled in the same manner under the surrender terms and that while the
United States had by the peace treaty agreed that residual sovereignty to the
Ryukyus might remain with Japan, we had also stipulated by Article 26 that if
Japan gave better terms to Russia we could demand the same terms for
ourselves. That would mean that if Japan recognized that the Soviet Union was
entitled to full sovereignty over the Kuriles we would assume that we were
equally entitled to full sovereignty over the Ryukyus.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23p1/d89
○政府委员（倭岛英二君） 今御审议を愿つております中华民国との平和条约において
は、中华民国の领土はどこであるとか、中华民国の国民はどれであるとかということを
きめる目的で、これは交渉がせられたのではございませんで、その领土の问题并びに领
土の帰属だとか、或いは中华民国の国民ばこういうものであるというような合意は、こ
の中には书いてございません。
倭岛政府委员： 现在拜托各位审议的与中华民国的和约，并非以决定何处是中华民国的
领土，谁是中华民国的国民为目的而做谈判的，在这里面并没有写着关于其领土问题，以
及领土的归属，或是何者为中华民国的国民等这样的协调。
※ 引述《godivan (加藤家的惠是我的!)》之铭言：
: ※ 引述《saveme (hihi)》之铭言：
: : 日本跟美国的官方解释是不是最正确的版本?
: : 我告诉你肯定是,
: : 而且狠狠的打你的脸.
: : http://ppt.cc/ophP
: : 难道你不晓得旧金山和平条约就是精确的实施坡次砍宣言,
: : 而非开罗宣言不明确的条款吗?
: : 除非中国你证明台湾是日本偷走的.
: : 且台湾澎湖依据旧金山和平条约,
: : 其地位与千岛群岛等地跟琉球是一样的,
: 能主张台湾是日本的是马关条约
: 不过很遗憾的是,在1941年的时候正好是太平洋战争爆发之时
: ROC随之宣告废除该条约
: 从ROC宣告废止后就等于主张台湾是中国的